Forced Vaccinations: Stepping into Eugenics? - Page 13

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Rrrrachel, I understand what you are saying, titers are really quite meaningless, you can be immune to a disease without evidence of antibodies because that disease was contracted naturally and the body developed cell mediated immunity. Vaccination can only provide a humoral (antibody mediated) immune response which we all know wanes and in some cases pretty quickly (mumps, pertussis, flu etc).

I have never had chicken pox even though I have been exposed countless times as a child and an adult. I might well no have varicella antibodies (no idea never tested and never will), but I certainly appear to be immune to chicken pox.

Frankly, I would be totally against schools requiring titer testing as proof of immunity, because it is not definitive proof by any means.

As would I, for the same reason.  Also, non-immune doesn't mean immediate risk...active infection with a contageous disease is what is risky to the public.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

"you can OBSERVE IT..."

Yes, and you can also deny the non-immune school entry to increase the immunity of the herd.  I'm using the SAME logic as you are re: vaccine mandates and how they pertain to public health. 

"which is not very useful"

It's not?  So immunity is not important? 

 Exactly, it is not about immunity its about ensuring everyone is vaccinated according to the one-size fits all program for the "common good".

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

You don't get it.  There is not a danger to a small percentage of non immune people in a population.  In small percentages non-immunity doesn't compromise herd immunity.  The percentage of people who don't develop immunity after vaccination is very, very small.  In these people re-vaccination is unlikely to help, unless the primary failure of the vaccine is due to an error like mis administering the vaccine or not adhering to the booster schedule.

Lack of immunity is a problem when it happens in larger percentages, because it compromises herd immunity.  The can happen when large percentages choose not to vaccinate or when small percentages choose not to vaccinate but cluster geographically.  People who are non immune due to primary vaccine failure are a smaller percentage and dont' cluster geographically (because they are randomly distributed) so it wouldn't apply to them.

There is not something magic about school.  Going to school without being vaccinated does not magically make you dangerous.  School requirements are a way to encourage vaccination, that's it.  It's a carrot/stick.  that's all.

Funny, but my child was treated as "magically dangerous" when she wasn't up to date on vaccines when we lived in Mississippi.  My child was found to be medically unable to recieve vaccines by her doctor (MD), and the state didn't care.  We had to leave the state to have the option to send her to school.  I left behind many, many people in similar situations as myself who were financially unable to move out of state. 

Keeping up the vaccine rates of the herd at the expense of individual children is not good public health policy, and it is obvious to most anyone who examines the details of this nonsense that profits motivate vaccine mandates, not public health.  But people are welcome to entertain any fantasy they see fit.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Uh yes, I do, I think seeing a doctor and filling out a form is an acceptable amount of inconvenience for skipping a procedure that protects your child and the rest of society from vaccine preventable diseases. Mystery solved.
That case you linked is terrible and Shouldn't happen, but it is in no way the norm.

Please reread my question. You did not answer it, and your "answer" contained a grossly twisted version of what I asked, with an entirely different meaning. In addition, your answer jumped to conclusions about the protection conferred by the procedure, and didn't even mention invasiveness, nor risks. You pretend that the benefits are a given and the risks non-existent.

Oh, and for non-vaxing parents in Mississippi and West Virginia, the amount of "inconvenience" is not limited to seeing a doctor and filling out a form; that won't get a medical exemption even for children who have had previous severe reaction. Most doctors don't recognize severe reaction even when they see it within hours of a vaccine.

I'll ask it again: You think that there is an acceptable amount of inconvenience to go through in order to prevent your child from being subjected to an invasive procedure against your wishes?

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

You don't get it.  There is not a danger to a small percentage of non immune people in a population.  In small percentages non-immunity doesn't compromise herd immunity.  The percentage of people who don't develop immunity after vaccination is very, very small.  In these people re-vaccination is unlikely to help, unless the primary failure of the vaccine is due to an error like mis administering the vaccine or not adhering to the booster schedule.

Lack of immunity is a problem when it happens in larger percentages, because it compromises herd immunity.  The can happen when large percentages choose not to vaccinate or when small percentages choose not to vaccinate but cluster geographically.  People who are non immune due to primary vaccine failure are a smaller percentage and dont' cluster geographically (because they are randomly distributed) so it wouldn't apply to them.

There is not something magic about school.  Going to school without being vaccinated does not magically make you dangerous.  

I do get your point.  

I wonder if you get mine and others expressed in this thread.

If someone comes on and says non-vaccinated children should not go to school, as we want to keep the number of non-vaxxed kids in school down to protect the herd  (even though those same kids do go to parks, play dates, soccer, ride public transit etc), then pro-vaxxers need to have that requirement placed on them as well.  Diseases such as CP and pertussis have vaccines that are quite ineffective.  If you insist all non-vaxxers  have exemptions or don't go to school for the sake of public health, then it is legitimate to insist vaxxed children have their titres tested or have exemptions to go to school in the case of less effective vaccines and endemic VADs. It is not as if a VAD discriminates between someone who is unimmunized and someone whose immunization did not take.  I do not think it is necessary to check titres for vaccines that are highly effective.  

For the record, I do not think exemptions should exist. I have less issues with registering as a non-vaxxer to get into school.  As I do not think exemptions exist, I do not think anyone should have to have their titres checked (really major epidemics not-withstanding).

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

You don't get it.  There is not a danger to a small percentage of non immune people in a population.  In small percentages non-immunity doesn't compromise herd immunity.  The percentage of people who don't develop immunity after vaccination is very, very small.  In these people re-vaccination is unlikely to help, unless the primary failure of the vaccine is due to an error like mis administering the vaccine or not adhering to the booster schedule.

Lack of immunity is a problem when it happens in larger percentages, because it compromises herd immunity.  The can happen when large percentages choose not to vaccinate or when small percentages choose not to vaccinate but cluster geographically.  People who are non immune due to primary vaccine failure are a smaller percentage and dont' cluster geographically (because they are randomly distributed) so it wouldn't apply to them.

There is not something magic about school.  Going to school without being vaccinated does not magically make you dangerous.  School requirements are a way to encourage vaccination, that's it.  It's a carrot/stick.  that's all.

Funny, but my child was treated as "magically dangerous" when she wasn't up to date on vaccines when we lived in Mississippi.  My child was found to be medically unable to recieve vaccines by her doctor (MD), and the state didn't care.  We had to leave the state to have the option to send her to school.  I left behind many, many people in similar situations as myself who were financially unable to move out of state. 

Keeping up the vaccine rates of the herd at the expense of individual children is not good public health policy, and it is obvious to most anyone who examines the details of this nonsense that profits motivate vaccine mandates, not public health.  But people are welcome to entertain any fantasy they see fit.

We completely disagree about what motivates vaccine mandates, but that's not a huge surprise. I also disagree that it'd at the expense of the individual child, I wouldn't support that. As I've said many times, the primary reason I vaccinated my child was to protect MY CHILD, the documented and observable benefits of things like herd immunity to society were secondary.

You are belittiling the opinion you disagree with again. It's not very conducive to having a civil conversation.

[Rrrrrachel]

Kathy, again, it's not about school.

It's completely inaccurate to say those vaccines are "quite ineffective."

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

 

We completely disagree about what motivates vaccine mandates, but that's not a huge surprise. I also disagree that it'd at the expense of the individual child, I wouldn't support that. As I've said many times, the primary reason I vaccinated my child was to protect MY CHILD, the documented and observable benefits of things like herd immunity to society were secondary.

You are belittiling the opinion you disagree with again. It's not very conducive to having a civil conversation.

Of course vaccine policy is at the expense of the individual. If it wasn't there wouldn't be a one-size fits all program and people would would be allowed to choose which vaccines they want for their children and there would be no need for exemptions. The States mandate the CDC recommended vaccines for school/daycare entry because it is the most efficient way to ensure the population is fully vaccinated.  They have to offer exemptions because vaccines are inherently unsafe, of course they have gotten around that one too by protecting the manufacturers with the vaccine compensation court.

Vaccine herd immunity is a myth, but they have to keep pushing the hoax on the public or the house of cards would come crashing down.

[Rrrrrachel]

Mirzam you keep saying herd immunity is a myth despite studies that show it is real and measurable.

[emmy526]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Mirzam you keep saying herd immunity is a myth despite studies that show it is real and measurable.

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-03-12/the-science-behind-herd-immunity-and-an-extension-to-gmos/

Quote:

The concept of herd immunity, as taken up by proponents of vaccination, is used to accomplish three things:

• Promote a sense of guilt in nonvaccinators, convince them of the idea that they may be responsible for others—including the vaccinated!—being infected with disease.
• Encourage an aggressive response from vaccinators against nonvaccinators by giving the impression that those who don’t vaccinate are to blame for disease.
• Press for governmental enforcement of vaccinations for everyone, regardless of different viewpoints, philosophical ideas, or individual rights—and regardless of the inherent risks of vaccination.

[Mosaic]

In spite of multiple reminders, warnings, etc., there is nothing in the last 4 pages of this thread that is on-topic. I do think they are worthwhile discussions, so feel free to start a new thread about exemptions/force/inconvenience, public health, etc.

I'm going to get admin input on this one and see if I can reopen it, or split it into separate topics, or... something. Thanks for your understanding.